Allowed

Aarif Ansari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/37912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Aarif Ansari, charged with offences under Sections 376 and 323 I.P.C., holding that there was no material necessitating custodial arrest.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail requiring provision of a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, delaying trial, and misusing liberty.

Aarif Ansari Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178723

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37912 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aarif Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharm Jeet Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. R.K. Shahi, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Dharm Jeet Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Aarif Ansari seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 484 of 2023 under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasia, District-Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Though the applicant is a named as well as chargesheeted accused inasmuch as charge sheet has been submitted against applicant on 30.07.2023 yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The prosecutrix is major. She is a willing and consenting party. According to learned counsel for applicant in the FIR there is no allegation that the applicant dislodged the modesty of the prosecutrix by extending false promise of marriage. He submits that in view of above, the law laid down by Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i). Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State

¶10

of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181, (ii). Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1073, (iii). Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108, (iv). Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 Live Law, SC 649 (v). Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89 , are not attracted, 5. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 21.06.2023. As such he has undergone more than two and a half months of incarceration. Police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. Upto this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Referring to the judgement of Apex Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel for first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since the applicant is a named as well as chargesheet accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The prosecutrix is the 'mami' of the applicant. Considering the relationship of the parties, they submit that no sympathy be shown by this court in favour of applicant. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at

¶12

this stage.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel for first informant, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix is major, she is a willing and a consenting party, there is nothing on record to show that false promise of marriage was extended by applicant to the prosecutrix, nor there is breach of promise by the applicant, police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5) , the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, clean antecedents of applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Aarif Ansari involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶17

(ii) Applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶19

(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison

¶21

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 YK

¶22

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aarif Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarif Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up vs Govind Das Sutradhar and Others

Raj Kumar Tiwari @ Vikki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bebi Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bharose Vs State of U.P.